America - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

*Checks thread*

Still talking about Julius Caesar?

Hamlet is more your speed?

 

[polysmut]

I think the production company of this recent Shakespeare in the park issued a statement along the lines of the assassination being a caution against trying to protect democracy by acting undemocratically. Stating that the play isn't even pro-assassination.
Even if was, it's a play not an instruction on how to act. It's not a threat to anyone, no matter which real life people are incorporated.

 

[ryzno]

How would people react if they did a play like this across the pond about the Queen?

 

[polysmut]

How would people react if they did a play like this across the pond about the Queen?

A play like what specifically? Where she was killed?
My guess is some people would watch it & some wouldn't. If it was any good, people would probably discuss it too.

 

[UKMikey]

A play like what specifically? Where she was killed?
My guess is some people would watch it & some wouldn't. If it was any good, people would probably discuss it too.

Perhaps I should hand my copy of The Smiths's The Queen Is Dead in at the local police station in case it radicalises anyone.

The play is not "about" Trump any more than it was about Obama in 2012.

 

[DDastardly00]

On the subject of why the difference in outrage, I see that you offer your own take, yet omit the one offered by the source you use.

Which is why I posted the link to the source, so you can read the whole thing. I saw no need to take up a whole page with a long article. I figured HuskerR32 would want to read the whole thing anyway, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more unbiased source. If anything, Melrose is clearly biased in favor of Eustis' 2017 production of Caesar.

I gave it a read - thanks for the article, by the way - and I'm not sure I'd call the differences glaring.
The Obama character holding a basketball is just as much of a tipoff as a long red tie is for Trump. (And while we're at it, Michelle's tendency to wear sleeveless tops isn't really any less identifiable than Melania's accent.)

I haven't seen either but Melrose, the director of the 2012 play, disagrees with you and to put it bluntly, his opinion is far more credible than yours. I'm inclined to agree with him based on the stills I've seen of both productions. That actor holding the basketball could be anybody, while Trump as Caesar is easily more identifiable as Trump. Melrose wanted the symbolism to be more vague and I think he achieved exactly that.

If you want the fulcrum of the debate to be on the differences between PG-13 and R, I'm going to pass. Killing a president is killing a president. More blood is a stylistic difference that doesn't alter the statement being made one iota.

It's also worth echoing what Scaff pointed out - most folks outraged about this are outraged because Breitbart told them to be; they haven't seen it, and pretty clearly don't understand the overall point of Julius Caesar in the first place.

Of course you are going to pass, because Trump's assassination scene, which is bloody and gruesome on purpose is clearly far more outrageous. As it happens, it stirred the pot enough to cause a significant backlash, how is this surprising at all? I mean, you post a comparison from 5 years ago that no one has ever seen until now and ask the question why people weren't concerned then, well, I think you have your answer, it didn't have enough shock value.

And honestly who cares if Breitbart (spelling?) or whatever source it was, ran a story first, TMZ probably ran the story too and since then, it's been picked up by everyone from Fox to CNN. I think I read it on the WA Examiner first. Point is, it was widely circulated, if you want to blame the media for reporting news, then uh, ok.

Fair enough, but if you want that courtesy, extend it to others as well. Your original post singled out "the left" for their (hypothetical) behavior, and I responded in kind. You want the conversation to remain politically neutral? Cool, start it off that way.

It isn't hypothetical when I cited two very specific sources as an example, Kathy Griffin and Oscar Eustis' Caesar production, and there are plenty more examples I could have used, but nice try.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How would people react if they did a play like this across the pond about the Queen?

People wouldn't bat an eyelid. We mostly understand that theatre, satire and the like aren't actually real life or instructional productions. Very recently there was a TV production (The Windsors, C4) that portrayed them pretty terribly. It was hugely popular.

 

[DDastardly00]

People wouldn't bat an eyelid. We mostly understand that theatre, satire and the like aren't actually real life or instructional productions. Very recently there was a TV production (The Windsors, C4) that portrayed them pretty terribly. It was hugely popular.

I find that hard to believe. If there was a bloody, violent stabbing scene involving several actors repeatedly stabbing the queen over 50 times with blood flying everywhere, I think that would cause significant outrage.

 

[UKMikey]

@DDastardly00, you are free to believe whatever you want.

Meanwhile from the looks of this stage invasion the Godwin's Law threshold has already been passed in this debate.

 

[huskeR32]

That actor holding the basketball could be anybody, while Trump as Caesar is easily more identifiable as Trump.

An actor with a long red tie could be anybody.

Of course you are going to pass, because Trump's assassination scene, which is bloody and gruesome on purpose is clearly far more outrageous.

Irrelevant. In both, a clearly recognizable proxy for a president is being killed. Anybody trying to make the amount of blood the defining difference is just desperate to justify their lopsided outrage.

I mean, you post a comparison from 5 years ago that no one has ever seen until now and ask the question why people weren't concerned then, well, I think you have your answer, it didn't have enough shock value.

I didn't ask why people weren't concerned then, I'm asking why they are concerned now.

And I don't think it comes down to shock value at all. I think it comes down to a population who doesn't know squat about the play in question letting themselves get worked up into a lather by a couple of news organizations who are getting very good at doing just that.

It isn't hypothetical

This bit is what I was referring to:

Imagine if it was Obama, would the left be singing the same tune? You and I both know they wouldn't.

You started the whole thing off by (incorrectly, as it turns out) guessing what "the left" would do in a hypothetical situation.

 

[Scaff]

I find that hard to believe. If there was a bloody, violent stabbing scene involving several actors repeatedly stabbing the queen over 50 times with blood flying everywhere, I think that would cause significant outrage.

A film was made based around the comic idea that the entire royal family is killed by electrocution, and the new king is a blue collar American.

Sum total of outrage in the UK for the comic death of the entire royal family? Bugger all that I can recall.

You also forget that like this source material, much of Shakespeare's work was a thinly veiled attack on the monarchy.

https://natgberry.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/shakespeare-attacks-absolute-monarchy/

 

[DDastardly00]

An actor with a long red tie could be anybody.

Right, sure, it can be anybody, you do realize how weak your argument is right? There is simply no way you are that ignorant and I know you are not stupid.

This doesn't look a thing like Obama:

Irrelevant. In both, a clearly recognizable proxy for a president is being killed. Anybody trying to make the amount of blood the defining difference is just desperate to justify their lopsided outrage.

Because there is no way people could possibly be outraged by this (and this is only the aftermath, the act is far more disturbing):

I didn't ask why people weren't concerned then, I'm asking why they are concerned now.

And I don't think it comes down to shock value at all. I think it comes down to a population who doesn't know squat about the play in question letting themselves get worked up into a lather by a couple of news organizations who are getting very good at doing just that.

I already answered this, because it doesn't look like Obama, the death scene was far less graphic and it was FIVE YEARS AGO.

Well, people are clearly shocked, so you're wrong. News sites report news, sorry if you don't like the reaction but it is what it is, your talking point needs some serious work. Even Melrose agrees the assassination scene is shocking and outrageous. If you can't see the difference or why people are offended then I can't help you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Better stay away from Lewes.

 

[huskeR32]

Right, sure, it can be anybody, you do realize how weak your argument is right?

Yes, that's the point; I took your weak argument and turned it back around so that you could see that it was weak.

The long tie is Trump, the basketball is Obama, and most people will immediately make both connections.

This doesn't look a thing like Obama

Other than the long tie, the other man looks nothing like Trump. Unless you're claiming that wearing a suit amounts to a Trump imitation, in which case there are tens of millions of Trump imitators in America everyday. Not to mention millions more who somehow imitated him before he even existed.

Because there is no way people could possibly be outraged by this

People can be outraged about graphic violence in general if they want to, that's not my point.

It just doesn't make a lick of difference how graphic the plays were relative to each other. Both portrayed the killing of a president, which you either think is okay or not okay. But be consistent. (For the record, I'm fine with it. I didn't care about the Obama play in 2012, and I don't care about this one now.)

I already answered this, because it doesn't look like Obama, the death scene was far less graphic and it was FIVE YEARS AGO.

What does it matter that it was FIVE YEARS AGO?

 

[Dotini]

When I was 14, President John F Kennedy was assassinated. A huge portion of his skull was blown off, and his wife crawled across the long, bloody trunklid of the Lincoln to try to retrieve pieces of his brain, scalp and skull. I was shocked and aggrieved. But I wasn't exactly outraged, because neither I nor anyone else knew who was behind it, or why. There was no satisfying object to attach outrage to. In the decades since I have read many books and articles in the effort to learn more about the man and his enemies. He had many, many enemies, as it turns out. And speculations have turned to each in the effort to understand the possible motives, and to who actually had a role in the assassination. Recently I have come to a kind of peace with this assassination as the who and the why of it gradually dawned on me. In a realistic sense, he "had it coming", as he had mightily offended so many powerful, important people and institutions. Official written statements released by the CIA in-house historian have helped make my new understanding possible. This fall's scheduled release of 30,000+ newly un-redacted documents and 3000+ never-before seen documents, mostly all from the CIA but some from the FBI, should make this abundantly clear. Only Trump can block this release.

Does Trump "have it coming", in the sense he should be swiftly removed from office by any possible legal means? Has he mightily offended many powerful, important people and institutions?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How would people react if they did a play like this across the pond about the Queen?

Most of the history plays do exacy this. Case in point, King Richard III.

 

[Danoff]

"And @Dotini wins the prize for post most likely to result in a visit from the Secret Service! Tell him what he's won Bob!"

"An all-expenses paid visit from a secret service agent for him and his friends, neighbors, and family! Dotini will be magically transported to a controlled facility where he can be evaluated. Meanwhile, those around him will also be included in the fun."

A very good friend of mine was questioned by the secret service because of a faaairly innocuous facebook post by his neighbor. Just saying... I don't think what you wrote above would trigger a response, but you're walking the tightrope.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A huge portion of his skull was blown off, and his wife crawled across the long, bloody trunklid of the Lincoln to try to retrieve pieces of his brain, scalp and skull.

It shattered but was mostly held on. In any case I'm not sure Jackie Kennedy was necessarily on a retrieval mission as you describe it.

In a realistic sense, he "had it coming", as he had mightily offended so many powerful, important people and institutions.

Nobody has their murder coming, not in a realistic sense. Some people are able to self-justify preparing and committing murders but that's not the same thing. Sometimes a murder occurs and it can be seen in hindsight exactly how the murder (and other would be murderers) came to be in that mindset. I'm not sure what an examination of that (or your flowery treatment of such a case) really gives the discussion though.

Dotini will be magically transported to a controlled facility where he can be evaluated and found guilty

You missed a bit

 

[DDastardly00]

Yes, that's the point; I took your weak argument and turned it back around so that you could see that it was weak. The long tie is Trump, the basketball is Obama, and most people will immediately make both connections.

No, what you did is post a weak left wing talking point about a play and a president that aren't relevant right now, from 5 years ago no less (that no one paid attention to or even knew about for that matter) as some form of feeble defense of the current production. You ostensibly refrain from acknowledging that the treatment of each assassination scene (which are quite different in nature, one is more tasteful, while the other is something straight out of horror movie) can have a significant impact on the reaction of others.

Other than the long tie, the other man looks nothing like Trump. Unless you're claiming that wearing a suit amounts to a Trump imitation, in which case there are tens of millions of Trump imitators in America everyday. Not to mention millions more who somehow imitated him before he even existed.

You need glasses then. I suppose the Red Hair, Trump-like gestures, mannerisms and the actress playing Melania with the Slovenian accent mean nothing either......

People can be outraged about graphic violence in general if they want to, that's not my point. It just doesn't make a lick of difference how graphic the plays were relative to each other. Both portrayed the killing of a president, which you either think is okay or not okay. But be consistent. (For the record, I'm fine with it. I didn't care about the Obama play in 2012, and I don't care about this one now.)

Yes, it does make a difference. One production was done with more care and what certainly seems to be more taste, the other was not. And no sorry, it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. When you have material that is controversial in nature, the treatment of that material is everything, just ask Kathy Griffin, even she admits that her beheading stunt went too far.

 

[huskeR32]

No, what you did is post a weak left wing talking point about a play and a president that aren't relevant right now

It was my "talking point," and I certainly don't represent the entirety of the "left wing." (Again, I find it really odd that you objected to the term "outraged Republican," but insist on labeling others.)

from 5 years ago no less

I'm still unclear on what difference that makes.

(that no one paid attention to or even knew about for that matter)

That people didn't throw a fit about it doesn't mean that nobody paid attention or knew about it. Do you have numbers at the ready that show this Trump production to be vastly more-attended than the Obama one?

While we're here, though, I'm not sure what difference that makes either. What does it matter if it was paid attention to or not?

You ostensibly refrain from acknowledging that the treatment of each assassination scene (which are quite different in nature, one is more tasteful, while the other is something straight out of horror movie) can have a significant impact on the reaction of others.

No. Once again, I get why people might object to graphic violence. However, that doesn't make a lick of difference when asking whether or not one should portray the death of a president (a question that the first amendment answers quite soundly, I'd say).

You need glasses then. I suppose the Red Hair, Trump-like gestures, mannerisms and the actress playing Melania with the Slovenian accent mean nothing either......

Let me get this straight:

Red hair and a too-long tie = unquestionable likeness to Trump

Black guy with a basketball* = definitely not our basketball-loving black president while he's in office

How on earth does it make sense to treat those two so differently?

A black guy holding a basketball, in a play about the death of a political leader, while a black, basketball-loving man happens to be president, is every bit as obvious as a white guy with red hair and a too-long tie.

*I'm starting to wonder if you know that Obama was a basketball nut, and if not, I'm honestly baffled as to how; he televised filling out his NCAA bracket every year for Pete's sake.

Yes, it does make a difference. One production was done with more care and what certainly seems to be more taste, the other was not.

Taste is subjective, and reduces this whole thing to a theatre critic's review.

Or are you really making your stand on "It's okay to kill a president on stage, just as long as I don't see a bunch of ketchup in the process!"

If that's really where you're at, then okay. Consider the whole thing dropped.

 

[DDastardly00]

It was my "talking point," and I certainly don't represent the entirety of the "left wing."

Sure it was your talking point, you didn't get it from anywhere else, I totally believe you. Never mind that was a story circulating last week. Yes, it is without a doubt a Talking Point. If you want to feign ignorance then go right at ahead, pardon my laughter.

June 12th
http://www.startribune.com/trump-th...-2012-obama-version-in-twin-cities/427990033/

I'm still unclear on what difference that makes.

Refer to my previous posts, I've answered this several times now. we're just going in circles now

That people didn't throw a fit about it doesn't mean that nobody paid attention or knew about it.

So the 2012 production garnered national attention? I was unaware. Did it lose it's sponsors because it was too controversial? I haven't heard that either.

Let me get this straight:

Red hair and a too-long tie = unquestionable likeness to Trump

Black guy with a basketball* = definitely not our basketball-loving black president while he's in office

How on earth does it make sense to treat those two so differently?

So Obama is the only African-American male ever to wear a suit and like Basketball? Got it. Apparently you didn't read the part of the Melrose interview where he said he wanted make any apparent reference more vague so people didn't necessarily draw that connection, or you did read it and you're just arguing with the director's intent at this point. I don't see anything from the stills that clearly indicate it's supposed to be Obama. It could be, it also could not be, whereas the trump references were far more obvious, like Melania's accent and Trump's gestures, it was far more than just a suit and a Red tie.

Taste is subjective, and reduces this whole thing to a theatre critic's review.

Or are you really making your stand on "It's okay to kill a president on stage, just as long as I don't see a bunch of ketchup in the process!"

If that's really where you're at, then okay. Consider the whole thing dropped.

If you're asking for my personal opinion, then no, I don't like the idea of killing a sitting president on stage, because as I've said many times in this thread, I respect the office of the POTUS and I don't think it's right.

 

[Liquid]

I'm more disturbed by the video of the US cabinet individually praising Donald Trump around a table in the White House; a move which would make North Korea blush.

 

[Northstar]

So Obama is the only African-American male ever to wear a suit and like Basketball? Got it.

Is there some other black basketball loving president I'm not remembering?

Apparently you didn't read the part of the Melrose interview where he said he wanted make any apparent reference more vague so people didn't necessarily draw that connection, or you did read it and you're just arguing with the director's intent at this point.

It's called giving yourself plausible deniability.

If you're asking for my personal opinion, then no, I don't like the idea of killing a sitting president on stage, because as I've said many times in this thread, I respect the office of the POTUS and I don't think it's right.

So why are you only speaking out against the Trump one?

 

[DDastardly00]

Is there some other black basketball loving president I'm not remembering?

It's called giving yourself plausible deniability.

According to the interview, it was for artistic reasons, Melrose wanted people to be able to enjoy the production without that frame of reference, which is why he made the reference more vague.

So why are you only speaking out against the Trump one?

I wasn't even aware of the other play until yesterday, kind of hard to speak out against something you didn't know existed.

 

[huskeR32]

Refer to my previous posts, I've answered this several times now. we're just going in circles now

No, you've simply repeated that it was five years ago. You haven't explained why that's relevant.

So the 2012 production garnered national attention? I was unaware. Did it lose it's sponsors because it was too controversial? I haven't heard that either.

I didn't make a claim either way. I simply pointed out that a lack of outrage about it doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't paid attention to.

So Obama is the only African-American male ever to wear a suit and like Basketball? Got it.

So Trump is the only white, red-haired, suit-wearing male to ever tie his tie too long? Got it.

EDIT:

Apparently you didn't read the part of the Melrose interview

If the director of the Trump play claimed that it wasn't supposed to be Trump, you'd just believe him blindly? Even though it's obvious it was supposed to be Trump?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So Obama is the only African-American male ever to wear a suit and like Basketball? Got it. Apparently you didn't read the part of the Melrose interview where he said he wanted make any apparent reference more vague so people didn't necessarily draw that connection, or you did read it and you're just arguing with the director's intent at this point. I don't see anything from the stills that clearly indicate it's supposed to be Obama. It could be, it also could not be, whereas the trump references were far more obvious, like Melania's accent and Trump's gestures, it was far more than just a suit and a Red tie.

That's the whole point of the play - you are meant to make the connection. It was certainly made in 2012 by audiences and critics just as a connection being made now. Given that Julius Caesar is a political leader and that the play was set in the Capitol the substitution of Obama for Caesar in the audience's mind didn't really rest on colour, height or a basketball. Really it was bleeding obvious.

I think what we're seeing here is a cult of protection around Trump (he may be a fool but he our fool!) in which mocking his hands, his peculiar manner of speaking, his sometime outrageous twitter meltdowns and so on is simply not allowed. That seems idiotic to me. The fact that a modern setting of a Shakespeare play has led some supporters to miss another point so wildly is, perhaps deliberately, quite ironic.

If you're asking for my personal opinion, then no, I don't like the idea of killing a sitting president on stage, because as I've said many times in this thread, I respect the office of the POTUS and I don't think it's right.

Trump isn't in it, it's up to the audience to make the connection. Shakespeare requires more than 140 characters for a start.

According to the interview, it was for artistic reasons, Melrose wanted people to be able to enjoy the production without that frame of reference, which is why he made the reference more vague.

Not quite. Once again you're missing the point that if you believe this is Trump (or Obama, or Mussolini) then it's actually pro Trump.

When Caesar is killed, it’s horrifying, it’s awful — whether it’s Obama or Trump. Trump, Republicans and Democrats should all take heart that what this play says is that killing a political leader, no matter how righteous your views are, is a bad idea — a terrible idea.

 

[andrea]

Ford to move factory to China after Trump pressures company not to move to Mexico

Ford Motor Co. is moving production of its Focus model to China after production at its Michigan plant ends in 2019.

The move, which Ford estimates will save it $500 million in production costs for the car, comes as the company has become a target of President Trump, who is pressuring manufacturers to keep jobs in the United States.

Ford initially planned to move production of the Focus to Mexico, but it is now scrapping that plan in favor of production in China, according to a report in Bloomberg.
Trump thanked Ford on Twitter for its decision to scrap the Mexican plant.

China's labor costs are lower than Mexico's, but shipping costs for the small cars will rise.

On the campaign trail and early in his presidency, Trump threatened to slap a 35 percent tariff on products made by American companies in other countries.

http://thehill.com/latino/338586-ford-to-move-production-of-focus-from-mexico-to-china
Another one: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ford-move-focus-production-michigan-074735437.html

The best deal/s

 

[DDastardly00]

No, you've simply repeated that it was five years ago. You haven't explained why that's relevant.

I don't need to explain something that is self-explanatory. When someone invents a time-machine maybe I'll head on back to 2012 and be outraged.

If the director of the Trump play claimed that it wasn't supposed to be Trump, you'd just believe him blindly? Even though it's obvious it was supposed to be Trump?

That's not what Melrose said, now you're just twisting words. Again, I repeat, he said he made the reference to Obama vague enough so that people could enjoy the play without the political context. At this point you and TenEightyOne are just arguing with the director of the play, which is rather silly imo. I simply armed you with information by posting an interesting interview, what you guys do with it is up to you.

I think what we're seeing here is a cult of protection around Trump (he may be a fool but he our fool!) in which mocking his hands, his peculiar manner of speaking, his sometime outrageous twitter meltdowns and so on is simply not allowed. That seems idiotic to me. The fact that a modern setting of a Shakespeare play has led some supporters to miss another point so wildly is, perhaps deliberately, quite ironic.

Actually what I think we are seeing is absolute disgust with the behavior of left using violent imagery masquerading as art.

Trump isn't in it, it's up to the audience to make the connection. Shakespeare requires more than 140 characters for a start. Not quite. Once again you're missing the point that if you believe this is Trump (or Obama, or Mussolini) then it's actually pro Trump.

No, it is you that is missing the point. Go review the last 3 pages where this was already discussed in detail. Quite frankly, I don't care about the meaning of the Shakespeare play in the context of this discussion, and neither do the millions of Americans who clicked on a link and watched a video of Trump being assassinated in bloody stabbing melee.

The original point was that James Hodgkinson, a liberal progressive, went and shot up a Republican Baseball practice with the intent of "killing as many Republicans as possible" wounding 6, some critically, I said two things last week, the leadership of this country needs to strongly condemn these acts, and the left is not helping by churning out violent imagery. I don't know whether this violent imagery had an effect on that nutjob's actions or not, maybe we will never know, but it is certainly not helping and it's definitely not constructive. I cited two things in that post, the Kathy Griffin photo beheading Trump and the assassination scene of Trump in the Caesar play, and how did you guys respond?

A sidebar topic was created on the meaning of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar by cherry picking half of a sentence from an entire paragraph of my post. It's rather comical really.

Listen, if you guys want to continue with this sideshow circus then fine, but what would really be great is if people here would actually respond to the context of my post. But unfortunately, that's not what people do here and I've noticed this in just about every topic in this section. Instead of having an intellectual discussion about the effects of violent imagery in the form of political propaganda and the effect it's having (the consequences are not known yet) you would rather drag a post off topic and discuss the meaning of Shakespeare's Caesar and beat the topic to death.

ps.

I noticed no one bothered defending Kathy, they just went straight for Shakespeare since it was clearly the easier target. Guess it's just too hard to defend Kathy's 'Art'.

 

[huskeR32]

Quite frankly, I don't care about the meaning of the Shakespeare play in the context of this discussion, and neither do the millions of Americans who clicked on a link and watched a video of Trump being assassinated in bloody stabbing melee.

Instead of having an intellectual discussion about the effects of violent imagery in the form of political propaganda and the effect it's having (the consequences are not known yet) you would rather drag a post off topic and discuss the meaning of Shakespeare's Caesar and beat the topic to death.

Standing on ignorance about the play in question in the same post that you lecture people about the need for more "intellectual" discourse is one of the more ironic things I've read in a long time.

 

[DDastardly00]

Standing on ignorance about the play in question in the same post that you lecture people about the need for more "intellectual" discourse is one of the more ironic things I've read in a long time.

I could care less about the meaning of Shakespeare's Caesar in the context of this discussion and I said as much on pages 422-423 after it was first mentioned. The sidebar topic created to drag the discussion off course is a diversionary tactic at best, nothing more. If you have something valuable to add to the original discussion then I'm all ears.